The tangled web of social networks

If you are reading this, then you probably have also heard about the recent debate on the health warnings about the extensive use of web 2.0 by our youngsters. The storm that raged about the use of social networking sites in particular took place in a teacup called the House of Lords, whipped up largely by one Baroness Greenfield .

You will not be surprised that the Daily Mail jumped on the bandwagon to broadcast the headline “Social websites harm children's brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist“

Nor will it surprise you that the scientific evidence to support this claim has since been brought into question, and indeed Catherine Bennett had a go at Baroness Greenfield on the Comment page in the Observer today.

The problem I have with the entire debate is that of course the liberal front will attack the Baroness for expressing such “antiquated” opinions and borderline prejudice towards technology - that is the cool stance to take. And the House of Lords is an easy target. It is uncool, and just so 20th century, to be a sceptic when it comes to the infiltration of modern ICTs into our daily lives.

Simultaneously (paradoxically), it is hip to be very critical indeed of the use of ICTs by governments and the diffusion of (mass surveillance) technology. The division of labour in this debate is such that the cool kids warn us of “the erosion of freedoms” whilst the government officialdom are seen as the crude Orwellian technocrats who in their endless pursuit for more power (of information) will drain society of civil liberties (read about it here).

To point out the paradox, in case you wondered what it was, those who defend web 2.0 and social networking will happily plaster personal information about themselves all over the net, whilst concerns have been raised in another “cool camp” about the exploitation of this giant pool of data (volunteered by individuals) for commercial purposes (or indeed for something altogether more sinister). In fact, my own recent status update alerted fellow facebookers to this piece of news. (erm, no one batted an eyelid)

Make what you wish of this debate, or choose a side even. What I am going to do instead is to add another, a rather more blogite, layer to it.

I want talk about the perils of social networking, not because I believe that it is going to “rewire your brain” (which is what Baroness Greenfield would have you believe) and therefore make you suffer from permanent ADHD. Nor because it looks like facebook might sell the right to access your personal information to faceless multinationals.

The subject of this post, admittedly after a lengthy introduction, is the potential personal cost of exposure to online social networks. I am about to discuss some observations made since giving up on my resistance to join the facebook frenzy back in October 2007.

A personal and well, yes, at times funny, article by Georgina Hobbs-Meyer appeared in the Guardian a while ago about the break-up of one marriage and how it all played out on facebook. Reference was naturally made to the infamous case of Chelsy Davy’s relationship status update. Albeit slightly naively written from the perspective of a 24-year old (/young) woman discovering her husband having an affair with a "younger woman" aged 19 (yes, it's all relative, isn't it?), it made me want to add my tuppence worth on the broader topic of social networking.

Today’s comment in the Observer by Catherine Bennett touches very lightly upon a previously uncharted territory of twittering about the end of your life – something she (surprisingly) attributes to “an older subscriber” - "looking down at my grey motionless body". I was struck by that assumption made about the nearness of death and old age particularly as none of us has been spared from the poor Jade Goody making a very public affair of her terminal cancer.

A friend of mine has become a twitter fan of Stephen Fry, Russell Brand and “Wossy” (who all tweet generously) and therefore I, too, have some exposure to the sort of things these gentlemen choose to broadcast about their daily lives. If Jade Goody was a twitterer (I don’t know if she is) her tweets would surely make a good case study of this emerging concept of web 2.0, social networks, exhibitionism and death. Then again, due to the very nature of web 2.0, there’s no money to be made from twittering your cancer diary (the attention economy has nothing to do with cash exchanging hands) - a fair assumption then that Jade Goody does not twitter, about her illness anyway.

Back to my sentiments/observations about facebook – or should I say fakebook: people post updates and photos portraying an image of them as party animals, looking gorgeous and being on top of the world generally. I heard recently of an encounter where a friend had met someone in the flesh and could not have recognised them on the basis of their profile picture (looking like a sex goddess, the truth being far from it). I, too, know of one or two people who might be guilty of faking it on facebook. That having said, I don’t know of any women who would post an entirely unflattering image of themselves, but there is a distinction to be made between flattering and unrealistic. Mind, once on facebook most of us are exposed to (un)helpful friends tagging us in photos looking… well… realistic.

Georgina Hobbs-Meyer’s account talks about discovering your husband having cyber-sex, thus she writes quite scornfully about the hedonistic side of facebook, and also of the dark side of becoming obsessed with using the tool to consume every bit of information you can about someone else.

In my social network I have witnessed an ex-lover hacking into their former love interest's facebook account and causing havoc. Another person inadvertently disclosed to a number of people through facebook about their recent miscarriage, and for good measure the same thread contained intimate details of her friend’s relationship break down. Not so much a slip of the tongue, but a slip of the finger. Thanks to facebook’s functionality, emails were sent to a whole host of unintended recipients.

The tangled web of social networks is such that it could happen to you - be warned.